get_screenshot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'short-lived CDN URL' and provides the expected output structure, which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., read-only nature), or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise, using a 'Do what' and 'Expected output' structure that is easy to parse. It front-loads the action and output, with no redundant filler. The 'IMPORTANT' note is slightly redundant with the schema but serves as a quick reminder.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the output structure, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, authentication context, and usage scenarios. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely restating that fileKey and nodeId are required. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 applies when schema fully documents parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it renders a PNG screenshot of any node and returns a CDN URL and curl command. This distinguishes it from metadata and design-context tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'renders' and resource 'node' make the purpose specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_metadata or download_assets. It only notes that both fileKey and nodeId are required, which duplicates schema information. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond required parameters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.